Different severity of sin or not?

[Slumberfreeze]

However, I know you study your Bible, so do you have any examples of instructions that overwrite the Law in such a way as they would be violating the Law?

Imma jump in here with 1cor7:18 : Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

So what happens if one of the (potentially) millions of uncircumcised adult male Jews gets called and becomes a Christian? We know that circumcision is part of the law from Gal5:3, so Paul's commandment to the uncircumcised commands them to either violate the law (according to one way of looking at it), or to not enter into the law-keeping covenant covenant in the first place (according to my own view).

So that you don't think this is a straw man:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/811832/jewish/Never-Too-Late-For-a-Circumcision.htm

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm

 

[Eristhophanes]

Slumberfreeze, please believe that I'm *NOT* trying to be disingenuous, but where in the Law is there a requirement for males to be circumcised? I don't recall one. Yet, I know what Genesis 17 says. However, I also know that the Abrahamic covenant preceded the Mosaic covenant, which preceded the New Covenant. With the Mosaic covenant, outsiders could join (proselytize). Without a requirement in the Law, were the proselytes actually required to circumcise themselves, or was it tradition? With the New covenant, there was also a change. It was no longer to the descendants of Abraham, but to all nations on a massive scale and the issue was presented front and center by Paul in the passage you cited, Galatians 5:3.

Now... I will point to the fact that once the foreskin is cut off, it doesn't grow back. It seems to me that Paul was being at least a bit metaphorical here because of his reference to being uncircumcised after being circumcised, so perhaps the underlying attitude of the heart is what is being taught here. However, there's also the issue of going from one covenant to another. Did the Abrahamic covenant change when the Mosaic covenant was adopted? Perhaps. Did the Mosaic covenant change with the institution of the New Covenant? Most definitely.

I think the real point to your objection is this: Paul did NOT tell the Jews to stop circumcising their male babies on the eighth day. He told them not to become UN-circumcised. Yes, the physical descendants of Abraham have an obligation to circumcise, which is responding to a previous command by God that has nothing to do with the New covenant. How do you apply the instruction not to become circumcised to a Jew who was circumcised on the 8th day? Aren't you looking at the extreme exception to the rule to try to demonstrate a problem?

Is any called in uncircumcision?

Show me a 7-day old baby who can confess with his mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord... and can argue his way out of circumcision... I'll concede your point.

To the best of my knowledge I'm not a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, but my sons were circumcised on the 8th day. All of them. I had a good doctor. He was willing to go along with that as long as I did it. And so I did. Not to keep a covenant I was not part of, not out of tradition I wasn't part of, not to do with anything related to salvation, but because I thought it was best. Because I'm their father and it was my call to make.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Aren't you looking at the extreme exception to the rule to try to demonstrate a problem?

I'm using an extreme example to demonstrate a problem to the widest number of viewpoints. I take a dim view of those who try to bring Gentiles under the law, but even I will concede that an unsaved Jew is still a debtor to keep the law.

How do you apply the instruction not to become circumcised to a Jew who was circumcised on the 8th day?

I don't, and wouldn't. A Jew circumcised on the 8th day is circumcised. He has literally just been commanded not to uncircumcise.

Now... I will point to the fact that once the foreskin is cut off, it doesn't grow back.

I will point to the fact that they don't fall off on their own either. Uncircumcision and Circumcision both take man's intervention and are both physically unpleasant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

Note also on the page the time period and region that foreskin restoration began to be a practice. At the time when Paul wrote his letters, there very much was a practice of physical uncircumcision.

It seems to me that Paul was being at least a bit metaphorical here

I hope not! I thought metaphorical circumcision was something to be desired (Circumcision of the heart) . If he is being metaphorical, what does his command to the uncircumcised even mean? Don't be metaphorically circumcised? Or is he switching gears and being mostly physical with one, and mostly metaphorical in the other?

 

[UntoldGlory]

Perhaps it got lost in the page changes, but I'd be interested to hear your take on the cases I mentioned in my last post on this thread @Eristhophanes ?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well right off the bat there's Romans 14 itself, which specifically refers to one's faith allowing them to eat anything, or allowing them to consider all days the same and none more sacred. Then there Acts 10, with Peter's vision where God tells him to kill and eat things that by the law are unclean.

This is a complete misunderstanding of Romans 14.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Cool, thanks for the illuminating response.

 

[FollowingHim]

I don't think you can show me any particular requirement for Christians that tells Christians to disobey the Law.

To explain myself a bit more fully and include the context since there have been a few posts since then:
You first described that Torah applies, then under Torah Yeshua gives further rules for His servants (e.g. don't use prostitutes). Then you stated "Romans 14 with respect to keeping the sabbath and eating meat sacrificed to idols is another example."
I responded that this explains His authority to add additional requirements, but not how He would have authority under Torah to command his servants to disobey Torah. By "disobey Torah" I was referring to your own statement regarding Romans 14. As I understood it, here you were claiming that Romans 14 states that we no longer have to keep Sabbath (ie can disobey Torah) and can eat meat sacrificed to idols (again, can disobey Torah).
So to answer your latest question - I can't find a requirement to disobey Torah, but you just stated that Romans 14 allows (doesn't command, but allows) us to disobey Torah. Like Zec, I'm not convinced.

Romans 14:2 appears to be referring to vegetarianism, not meat sacrificed to idols. By my reading, the distinction seems to be between eating all allowable food (including clean meats) vs vegetarianism (because there is a direct reference to herbs). Both options are within Torah.
Romans 14:14 states that uncleanness is a matter of the heart, not a physical matter (ie there is nothing physically different about food sacrificed to idols, only in our perception and spiritually). In other words, something is only unclean to us once we recognise it to be unclean (v20) - once we recognise it to be unclean to us, then we should not eat it, but if we do not recognise it to be unclean there is no condemnation. This is not an endorsement to eat meat sacrificed to idols, just an explanation that YHWH cares most about the intent of the heart.

Romans 14:5 does not endorse breaking Sabbath or altering Sabbath. Rather, it is an encouragement to study and pray until we are "fully persuaded in our own mind" what we believe is right regarding holy days, then do that. It is an encouragement to seek YHWH's will, then having learnt that, to obey it, and not to judge those who believe differently. For instance, Sabbath is the seventh day - but starting from where? Should we use the current lunar Rabbinical calendar, or the ancient solar calendar from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which places Sabbath on a Wednesday this year I think), or something else? We are to figure it out until we are fully persuaded what we believe YHWH would have us do, then do that, and not judge our brothers who may come to a different conclusion, because YHWH judges the intent of the heart not the perfection of the action itself.

Now remember I am pulling up the example you yourself gave, trying to understand what you meant, then countering that, I could have misunderstood you and this whole post could be barking up the wrong tree.

 

[UntoldGlory]

It's so odd to me, kind of funny really, how we can look at the same stuff and have such polar opposite views on it.

First, thanks for the great write up. I honestly had no idea how people could read a passage like Romans 14 and come away thinking they needed to follow the Torah. I get where you're coming from now. I don't agree, I do get where you're coming from. I'll get into the specifics in a moment, but first I want to comment a little on the nature of the debate.

So, the way I see it, we basically have two sides here that think the exact same thing about the other side. On one side there are Torah keepers (TK) who look at new covenant (NC) people and say something like "Ok they're believers, but they haven't matured enough yet, or gotten the full revelation, or don't have strong enough faith yet to follow the Torah. Romans 14 tells me I should have grace for them until they get to that point." But then on the flip side you have NC people who look at TK people and think "Ok they're believers, but they haven't matured enough yet, or gotten the full revelation, or don't have strong enough faith yet to not be bound by the Torah. Romans 14 tells me I should have grace for them until they get to that point." It's actually kind of hilarious.

The cliff notes version of how I view your take on Romans 14 is that I think you're reading into it what you want to hear (as I'm sure is true in reverse). To me it sounds like you're "putting words into the mouth of the author" in the same way that we so often see people add words and meaning to verses in order to condemn poly. I'll go over some examples to highlight what I mean.

Romans 14:2 - I see it as endorsing people who choose to eat "all things", you see it (as far as I can tell) as endorsing people who choose to eat "all things already allowed by the Torah".

There are a few things this brings up, so bear with a small rabbit trail. In my experience, TK people focus on minutia, while NC people focus on concept. Not saying either one is inherently right or wrong, good or bad, just observation. Like in this case TK people *seem* to focus on the specifics mentioned of what is ok to eat and observation of the Sabbath. That's fair. NC people on the other hand tend to see those two items as examples or representations of the entirety of the Torah, because they're kind of big deals in the Torah. So TK people *might* look at the verse and say "Ok I can eat anything and don't have to keep a specific Sabbath, but the *rest* of the Torah is still in effect", where a NC person might read it and say "These are clearly just examples to show the concept that by faith I am free from the law, as long as what I do I do for the glory of God". -- Ok, rabbit trail over.

Back to Romans. In 14:2 it says "all things". That word pairing is the single transliterated word "pas", for which the number 1 definition is: "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything". To me, there is nothing that implies "all things already allowed in the Torah", or "all things not otherwise forbidden in the Torah". I will cede that the number 2 definition is "some of all types", but again, it seems a great and fairly unsupported assumption to add in that "already allowed in the Torah" part.

Same argument applies to the part about the Sabbath. I was right there with you on your breakdown of Romans 14:5, right up until your for instance. It *seems* that your for instance still makes the assumption that after the first steps you talked about, once we are "fully persuaded in our own mind" that what we will be persuaded to is that we must keep the Sabbath. That's not the case for me. I look at examples of Jesus and the disciples doing things on the Sabbath that were considered wrong, and I look at the "concept" of the Sabbath. So my take away is "Rest is important, even God rested. I should make sure I rest, but not be so rigid about it that 'observing the Sabbath' becomes a burden or interferes with the work of the Lord."

To me, the real gist of Romans 14 (there's that concept thing again) is 14-20:
14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

I mean, it spells it out right there. "in the Lord Jesus nothing is unlcean in itself" and "All things are indeed clean". Also right in there is where I can look at a TK and give them a big thumbs up because I know that what they do, they do for the glory of God, and I applaud that. *ALSO* in there (16) is why I still talk about my reasoning as to why it is not a sin for me. *ALSO* in there is why if I go to a TK household I eat according to their beliefs while there, and don't bring a baggie of bacon with me to munch on, because then that's a stumbling block for him and to our relationship.

Also, I'd point out that Romans 14 doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's taken along with things like Acts 10 (Peter's vision in which he's told to kill and eat things he thought of as unclean), Acts 15 (all that is required of Gentile believers, which I believe includes me), and of course Hebrews 8, inclusive but especially verses 6 & 13, which tells us that the first covenant Jesus brought is far better than the old one, and that the old one is obsolete.

 

[FollowingHim]

Excellent summary of the way the two "sides" look at things, and I agree it is quite amusing! Note too that two years ago I would have responded the exact way you just did, so I completely understand where you're coming from. And I am in no way claiming my current perspective is perfect either, I'm on a learning journey like all of us.

Fundamentally, I wouldn't argue that Romans 14 definitely states we must keep following the food laws and the Sabbath. Two differing interpretations are possible. We could debate which is correct for ages, but you can make a good case for either. When considering this I recognise that both are potentially correct and I don't know for certain which it is, from that passage alone. But what I do know is that since this passage MAY be interpreted in a way that does not override Torah, it is not proof in itself that Torah may be overwritten. I find the same issue with every other passage generally used for this - although each may allow Torah to be overridden, each can also be interpreted in a way that is consistent with Torah. Then I take the conservative approach - if YHWH is the same yesterday, today and forever, and Yeshua is the Word of YHWH, I would expect his teachings to be consistent. I need a very solid scriptural case to show otherwise. If none of these passages give such a clear case, it is better to conservatively assume that Torah remains. I err on the side of internal consistency in doctrine, because it's a safer side to err on.

Having said that I am not fully Torah-obedient, but getting there. Moving in that direction, gradually and cautiously, so as not to be "carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14).

The main differing interpretations of Acts 15:19-21, as I see them. Scripture in bold and my paraphrasing in italics:

New Covenant, mainstream Christianity:
Because the law is done away with my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. And that has never been enough to save everyone, we now have a better covenant, so we need no longer follow the preaching of Moses.

Torah keepers:
Because we want to be open and welcoming to anyone whom God is calling my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood because these are issues that are particularly visible and likely to offend those already in the church. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath, so we need not try and make them accept all this before they are welcome, they'll learn it soon enough if they choose to follow God because it's preached everywhere already.

The first interpretation is that the Jerusalem church elders had the authority to define what laws new believers had to follow. The second interpretation is that the Jerusalem church elders wished to simply lay down some basic ground rules so everyone could get along - in the same way that a modern church might invite a prostitute to attend a service and say "just please wear something somewhat modest and don't inject yourself with drugs in the back row", but not mean that this is all they would ever intend to teach her about Godly behaviour.

Torah Keepers see the debate in Jerusalem as being between "leave your foreskin on the chopping block at the door on the way in" (which is a serious disincentive...) and "If you want to learn about YHWH, come in, we have only a few basic rules and they're pretty simple! You will probably eventually be convicted by YHWH to do more than that, but that's between you and Him, we're not policing it" (which is far more likely to spread the Gospel). While New Covenant believers see it as being between law vs grace. Very different perspectives.

A detailed case can be mounted for either interpretation - which means that this passage also does not prove Torah is done away with either, it would be consistent with either view. We'd need a clearer statement than this, ideally from Yeshua. But He actually said clearly that He did not come to do away with the law (Matthew 5:17-19). So either interpretation is plausible, but the second interpretation appears more consistent with His teachings.

 

[Eristhophanes]

So, the way I see it, we basically have two sides here that think the exact same thing about the other side. On one side there are Torah keepers (TK) who look at new covenant (NC) people and say something like "Ok they're believers, but they haven't matured enough yet, or gotten the full revelation, or don't have strong enough faith yet to follow the Torah. Romans 14 tells me I should have grace for them until they get to that point." But then on the flip side you have NC people who look at TK people and think "Ok they're believers, but they haven't matured enough yet, or gotten the full revelation, or don't have strong enough faith yet to not be bound by the Torah. Romans 14 tells me I should have grace for them until they get to that point." It's actually kind of hilarious.

And then, you have me. I'm trying to point out that there is a fundamental change in status when one becomes a Christian, in the same way one changes status when becoming a slave.

However, this isn't really my area. My area is sex and marriage.

To me, the real gist of Romans 14 (there's that concept thing again) is 14-20:

I've had real arguments about this, with respect to polygyny. The idea that it causes others to stumble, therefore should not be allowed. I reject it because it ratifies a lie.

Fundamentally, I wouldn't argue that Romans 14 definitely states we must keep following the food laws and the Sabbath.

I see this as along the lines of the spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law. The text says what is says. WRT the meat sacrificed to idols, there is no command in the Law not to eat meat sacrificed to idols if it's not part of an idolatrous ceremony. If all you're looking at is a piece of meat, who cares how that varmint got killed, it's dead. Take, cook, give thanks and eat. You're not participating in idolatry. Intent has a lot to do with it, regardless of what others think.

______________________

From one of the novels I recently wrote:

Christmas was rapidly approaching and Katherine and Punkin were about to pop smoke for some parental time. Pookie and Mom promised to keep me busy. The night before they left David came by for dinner and brought a couple with him, Alex and Liz. Fozz and the Wookie came and they brought the Wookie’s mother and father. The girls were in rare form. They wore the dresses from the Casablanca affair and I wore the white dinner jacket. The conversation was wide-ranging and it was at that point that I realized that we weren’t going to throw any more of the old parties, from now on it would be dinner parties like this one. We weren’t working, we were having fun.

Toward the end of the evening I asked the Wookie to go get the box on the mantle and give it to Fozz. She did so. When he opened it and pulled out the sword her face went white. I said “Fozz, I believe the woman just brought you your sword. Merry Christmas.”

Fozz put the box on the floor and started looking at the sword. He pulled it part way out of the sheath and I told him to be careful, it’s real. He nodded and started to push it back in but the Wookie stopped him. Then she bent down and carefully kissed the blade. That was not expected. The look on his face was priceless. Likewise but more disturbing was the look on her mother’s face. Isabel looked like she had just had a vision.

Essentially they'd just been married. They knew it and she knew it.

A Week Later.....

Fozz called on Christmas day and asked if we were taking refugees. I told them to come over. The Wookie went straight to Mom’s room, Mom followed. Pookie grabbed some snacks and death-juice and followed. Fozz shook his head and said something about drama. I was luxuriating in a food-induced lethargy and happy to give him time. He’d talk when he was ready. He didn’t get the chance because Mom came boiling out of her room and told me the problem: the local priest was saying they’d committed a mortal sin by engaging in a pagan ritual. Pookie and the Wookie had followed her.

Fozz wasn’t worried about it, he never went to Mass anyway, this was a Wookie issue.

“Wookie, relax. This idiot just called the Pope a pagan, in a round about way. OK? Look- Popes get rings, knights get swords. When you submit you’re gonna kiss something, so if kissing the knight’s sword is pagan then so is kissing the Pope’s ring.”

You’d have thought I brought somebody back from the dead. She picked up the phone, dialed from memory and cut loose with Spanish so fast I couldn’t follow it. She listened for a moment, then said thank you and hung up. She curled up next to Fozz with an absolutely evil grin. Fozz told me to wait.

I had Mom on one side and Pookie on the other side and was in that twilight zone just between wakefulness and sleep when someone started knocking on the door. Both Pookie and Mom were asleep so I motioned with my head at the Wookie, who got up and answered the door. It was her mom and two of the abuelas. I got up and picked up the girls, one at a time, and carried them to their rooms while the ladies waited.

After I had the doors shut I waved toward the table and we sat down. Fozz got a tray of sliced meat and cheese and crackers. The Wookie poured me a glass of wine. Her mom was watching this. “Make yourself at home, hmmm?”

“Hush. They are at home. They’re part of the family.” The ladies all accepted a glass of wine, Fozz got one of his beers. The Wookie went for the death-juice and finally sat down.

Her mom got to the point. “Tell me why the Pope is a pagan?”

Sigh. “I didn’t say the Pope was a pagan, I said the priest said the Pope was a pagan. The Pope’s ring is a symbol of his authority, the knight’s sword is the symbol of his authority. Submit to the Pope and you kiss his ring. Submit to the knight, you kiss his sword. In each case it’s a submission to authority, the only difference is the symbol of authority. So, if the priest is saying that her kissing his sword is pagan, then he is also saying that kissing the Pope’s ring is pagan, which kind of makes the Pope a pagan.”

She made a rapid-fire translation which got two of the most evil grins from those abuelas I have seen in a good long time. They thought about it, sipped their wine, muttered comments back and forth, then started with names. It only took a few moments before they clinked glasses, drained them and stood. The older of the two walked over and gave me a kiss on the cheek. Then they left. Both the Wookie and her mom had satisfied smiles on their faces. Fozz wasn’t smiling, he wasn’t done eating yet. I’m pretty sure he was thinking about a slice of steak from the fridge.

The Wookie explained that the one who kissed me was the same one who said the collars were normal.

“She’s hated that priest for years because he’s an idiot and now his days are numbered. Because he hated you and you’re untouchable, he went after me and Fozz. And all we had to do was mention it and you immediately saw what an idiot he was. And when she watched you carry the girls to bed, she commented that you were very gentle with them. That kiss on the cheek means that she’s on your side.”

The Wookie’s mom looked pretty happy and relieved too.

​

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm always so at odds with everyone that I sometimes wonder if I have a personality disorder.

So keep that in mind she you read this but as I read Romans 14 one of these individuals is weak in the faith and it's tempting to despise him, so there is a preference. It's not an either or proposition.

Personally we observe Sabbath largely because of this verse. The options listed here are to observe a specific day, which I take to be the seventh day, or no day. You don't get to choose.

It also seems clear that the cleanliness laws were fulfilled. We observe the dietary laws though. I just assume there will be benefits. The natural world always conforms to God's utterances.

 

[UntoldGlory]

A detailed case can be mounted for either interpretation - which means that this passage also does not prove Torah is done away with either, it would be consistent with either view. We'd need a clearer statement than this, ideally from Yeshua. But He actually said clearly that He did not come to do away with the law (Matthew 5:17-19). So either interpretation is plausible, but the second interpretation appears more consistent with His teachings.

Ah! Yes! So I agree that the law is not done away, that it is still a valid contract. Like, natural born Jews or Gentiles that converted to Judaism (before becoming believers in Christ specifically) would be under that covenant. But we have a *better* (Hebrews 8's word, not mine) covenant available.

Speaking of Hebrews 8, is that not the clearer statement you talked about? What's the TK interpretation of that one?

@ZecAustin, come now, you sometimes agree with someone... at least in part!

@Eristhophanes In regards to the stumbling block argument, yeah, I've heard that one too. My response is generally "Well then I promise I won't ask you to marry me (or "perform the marriage" if it's a pastor), and none of us will make love in front of you." If they can't handle me simply *believing* something, well, then I doubt they can handle walking out their front door. Oh, and I'm not 100% clear on if the story excerpt was supposed to tie in to the topic? It appears to have a bit more to do with hypocrisy in organized religion? I'll admit I had a bit of trouble following it since I'm not familiar with the who's who of the story.

 

[FollowingHim]

Hebrews 8 explains that the old covenant required people to approach YHWH through human mediators, the new allows us to approach Him through His Son. In other words, the pattern of worship, the pattern by which we approach Him, has been altered.

Then Hebrews 8:10-12 tells us how that new covenant relates to the Law:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days,” says the Lord;
“I will put my laws into their mind,
I will also write them on their heart.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,
and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for all will know me,
from their least to their greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness.
I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.”

The new covenant does not say anything about changing the laws. It simply says that His laws will be written on their minds and hearts. What are His Laws that will be written on their minds and hearts, in this new covenant? Remember too that this was written to Hebrews - what would they think when He said "my laws"?

 

[Lila]

I'm not as eloquent as FollowingHim when it comes to covering the nitty-gritty but what I was amazed at when coming to see the New Covenant is in essence about a new heart that believers are given from the Almighty, I started to see that this is why the Scriptures provide specifics/ instructions how we are to live.

It is the mainstream Christianity idea that there are bits that have been done away with and those (like tithing - I wonder why lol) that are still in force.

And I just wonder - what makes us believers conclude we are free to live whatever way we like and please God whichever way we choose if it consequently invalidates the specifics written down for us?

 

[Eristhophanes]

And I just wonder - what makes us believers conclude we are free to live whatever way we like and please God whichever way we choose if it consequently invalidates the specifics written down for us?

Money.

Professional Christians sell a product called "pastoring" and "leadership" and other fancy names within a business framework called a not-for-profit corporation that provides services of a religious nature to the general public.

In order to get more customers, they need to differentiate. One way is a new interpretation that's more to people's liking. Paradoxically, another is to interpret things with extreme restrictions so as to make people feel like they're special and better than others. Another popular one is to find an enemy and set up in opposition to that enemy because a common enemy brings people closer together.

Once they have their customers they have to be managed. This is known as "shepherding the flock" and it involves appeasing the women because as a rule the women control the money. As for families, women are typically the ones who decide if and where the family goes to church. And how much they tithe. Which is why modern churchianity is completely feminist these days. The authority figure tells people what they want to hear and since they don't study their Bibles, they believe it.

To keep the feminists happy and ensure there is no challenge to their leadership, the masculinity and male dominance is stomped out of the men starting when they are boys. Which is why most churches are overwhelmingly female. Where are the men? They left. Why fight a war you can't win? The result is there isn't anyone to stand up and call anyone out when they lie about what Scripture actually says. Anyone who dares to challenge the narrative must be destroyed, because churchianity is a big business. There is a lot of money on the table.

Go ahead, call me cynical. But this really can't be denied because that's the way the business of churchianity works these days.

 

[andrew]

Cynical.

Not.

Just calling 'em out, and I particularly like the way you called out the pandering to the women.

Cynical is when you start referring to government churches as McChurches. Not that I know anyone that has actually done that, of course....

 

[Eristhophanes]

@andrew

Every time I see the Boondock Saints reference in your signature, it ticks me off that they couldn't agree to make a third. It really does, because that was a great franchise.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Cynical is when you start referring to government churches as McChurches. Not that I know anyone that has actually done that, of course....

Yet another BF quote I'm going to plagiarize without remorse!

 

[andrew]

@Eristhophanes - I'm with you on that! Loved the first, liked the second enough, and would have cheerfully bought into a third. And obviously that line stuck with me....

 

[UntoldGlory]

Boondock Saints *is* a great movie. Yay! Something we can agree on!